Health-Related Quality of Life Among Patients With HR+/HER2- Early Breast Cancer

Percutaneous ultrasound-guided cryoablation for early-stage primary breast cancer: a follow-up study in Japan

BACKGROUND

Ultrasound-guided percutaneous cryoablation (PCA) for early-stage breast cancer (ESBC) can be performed under local anesthesia in an outpatient clinic. This study continues a pilot stage to examine local control, safety, patient quality of life (QoL), satisfaction and cosmetic outcomes of cryoablation for ESBC.

METHODS

PCA was performed under local anesthesia for patients with primary ESBC, followed by radiation and endocrine therapies. Oncologic outcomes were examined by imaging (mammography, ultrasound, MRI) at baseline and 1, 6, 12, 24, 36, and 60 months post-cryoablation. EQ-VAS, EQ-5D-5L, subjective satisfaction and Moiré topography were used to measure health-related QoL outcomes.

RESULTS

Eighteen patients, mean aged 59.0 ± 9.0 years, mean tumor size 9.8 ± 2.3 mm, ER + , PR + (17/18), HER2-, Ki67 < 20% (15/18), underwent PCA and were followed for a mean of 44.3 months. No serious adverse events were reported, and no patients had local recurrence or distant metastasis in the 5-year follow-up. Cosmetic outcomes, satisfaction level, and QoL all improved post-cryoablation. Five-year average reduction rates of the cryolesion long, short, and depth diameters, on US, were 61.3%, 42.3%, and 22.8%, respectively, compared to the 86.2% volume reduction rate on MRI. The correlation coefficient between MRI and US measurement criteria was highest for the long diameter. During follow-up, calcification of the treated area was observed in 13/18 cases.

CONCLUSION

Cryoablation for ESBC is an effective and safe procedure with excellent cosmetic outcomes and improved QoL. This study contributes to the growing evidence supporting cryoablation as a potential standard treatment for ESBC, given compliance to pre-defined patient selection criteria.

Patient preferences for breast cancer screening: a systematic review update to inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care

BACKGROUND

Different guideline panels, and individuals, may make different decisions based in part on their preferences. Preferences for or against an intervention are viewed as a consequence of the relative importance people place on the expected or experienced health outcomes it incurs. These findings can then be considered as patient input when balancing effect estimates on benefits and harms reported by empirical evidence on the clinical effectiveness of screening programs. This systematic review update examined the relative importance placed by patients on the potential benefits and harms of mammography-based breast cancer screening to inform an update to the 2018 Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care's guideline on screening.

METHODS

We screened all articles from our previous review (search December 2017) and updated our searches to June 19, 2023 in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. We also screened grey literature, submissions by stakeholders, and reference lists. The target population was cisgender women and other adults assigned female at birth (including transgender men and nonbinary persons) aged ≥ 35 years and at average or moderately increased risk for breast cancer. Studies of patients with breast cancer were eligible for health-state utility data for relevant outcomes. We sought three types of data, directly through (i) disutilities of screening and curative treatment health states (measuring the impact of the outcome on one's health-related quality of life; utilities measured on a scale of 0 [death] to 1 [perfect health]), and (ii) other preference-based data, such as outcome trade-offs, and indirectly through (iii) the relative importance of benefits versus harms inferred from attitudes, intentions, and behaviors towards screening among patients provided with estimates of the magnitudes of benefit(s) and harms(s). For screening, we used machine learning as one of the reviewers after at least 50% of studies had been reviewed in duplicate by humans; full-text selection used independent review by two humans. Data extraction and risk of bias assessments used a single reviewer with verification. Our main analysis for utilities used data from utility-based health-related quality of life tools (e.g., EQ-5D) in patients; a disutility value of about 0.04 can be considered a minimally important value for the Canadian public. When suitable, we pooled utilities and explored heterogeneity. Disutilities were calculated for screening health states and between different treatment states. Non-utility data were grouped into categories, based on outcomes compared (e.g. for trade-off data), participant age, and our judgements of the net benefit of screening portrayed by the studies. Thereafter, we compared and contrasted findings while considering sample sizes, risk of bias, subgroup findings and data on knowledge scores, and created summary statements for each data set. Certainty assessments followed GRADE guidance for patient preferences and used consensus among at least two reviewers.

FINDINGS

Eighty-two studies (38 on utilities) were included. The estimated disutilities were 0.07 for a positive screening result (moderate certainty), 0.03-0.04 for a false positive (FP; "additional testing" resolved as negative for cancer) (low certainty), and 0.08 for untreated screen-detected cancer (moderate certainty) or (low certainty) an interval cancer. At ≤12 months, disutilities of mastectomy (vs. breast-conserving therapy), chemotherapy (vs. none) (low certainty), and radiation therapy (vs. none) (moderate certainty) were 0.02-0.03, 0.02-0.04, and little-to-none, respectively, though in each case findings were somewhat limited in their applicability. Over the longer term, there was moderate certainty for little-to-no disutility from mastectomy versus breast-conserving surgery/lumpectomy with radiation and from radiation. There was moderate certainty that a majority (>50%) and possibly a large majority (>75%) of women probably accept up to six cases of overdiagnosis to prevent one breast-cancer death; there was some uncertainty because of an indication that overdiagnosis was not fully understood by participants in some cases. Low certainty evidence suggested that a large majority may accept that screening may reduce breast-cancer but not all-cause mortality, at least when presented with relatively high rates of breast-cancer mortality reductions (n = 2; 2 and 5 fewer per 1000 screened), and at least a majority accept that to prevent one breast-cancer death at least a few hundred patients will receive a FP result and 10-15 will have a FP resolved through biopsy. An upper limit for an acceptable number of FPs was not evaluated. When using data from studies assessing attitudes, intentions, and screening behaviors, across all age groups but most evident for women in their 40s, preferences reduced as the net benefit presented by study authors decreased in magnitude. In a relatively low net-benefit scenario, a majority of patients in their 40s may not weigh the benefits as greater than the harms from screening whereas for women in their 50s a large majority may prefer screening (low certainty evidence for both ages). There was moderate certainty that a large majority of women 50 years of age and 50 to 69 years of age, who have usually experienced screening, weigh the benefits as greater than the harms from screening in a high net-benefit scenario. A large majority of patients aged 70-71 years who have recently screened probably think the benefits outweigh the harms of continuing to screen. A majority of women in their mid-70s to early 80s may prefer to continue screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence across a range of data sources on how informed patients value the potential outcomes from breast-cancer screening will be useful during decision-making for recommendations. The evidence suggests that all of the outcomes examined have importance to women of any age, that there is at least some and possibly substantial (among those in their 40s) variability across and within age groups about the acceptable magnitude of effects across outcomes, and that provision of easily understandable information on the likelihood of the outcomes may be necessary to enable informed decision making. Although studies came from a wide range of countries, there were limited data from Canada and about whether findings applied well across an ethnographically and socioeconomically diverse population.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

Protocol available at Open Science Framework https://osf.io/xngsu/ .

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Adjuvant Olaparib Versus Watch and Wait in the Treatment of Germline BRCA1/2-Mutated, High-Risk, HER2-Negative Early Breast Cancer in Sweden

INTRODUCTION

This study evaluated the cost effectiveness of adjuvant olaparib versus watch and wait (WaW) in patients with germline breast cancer susceptibility gene 1/2 (gBRCA1/2)-mutated, high-risk, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative early breast cancer (eBC), previously treated with neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy, from a Swedish healthcare perspective.

METHODS

A five-state (invasive disease-free survival [IDFS], non-metastatic breast cancer [non-mBC], early-onset mBC, late-onset mBC, death) semi-Markov state transition model with a lifetime horizon was developed. Transition probabilities were informed by data from the Phase III OlympiA trial, supplemented with data from additional studies in BRCA-mutated, HER2-negative mBC. Health state utilities were derived via mapping of OlympiA data and supplemented by literature estimates. Treatment, adverse events and other medical costs were extracted from publicly available Swedish sources. Incremental cost per life-year (LY) and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained were estimated. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% annually. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted.

RESULTS

Over a lifetime horizon, adjuvant olaparib was associated with an additional 1.50 LYs and 1.22 QALYs, and incremental cost of 471,156 Swedish krona (SEK) versus WaW (discounted). The resulting ICER was 385,183SEK per QALY gained for olaparib versus WaW. ICERs remained below 1,000,000SEK across a range of scenarios, and were consistent across subgroups (hormone receptor [HR]-positive/HER2-negative and triple-negative breast cancer [TNBC]). In PSA, the probability of olaparib being cost effective at 1,000,000SEK per QALY was 99.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

At list price, adjuvant olaparib is a cost-effective alternative to WaW in patients with gBRCA1/2-mutated, high-risk, HER2-negative eBC in Sweden.

Construction of the structural equation model of stigma, self-disclosure, social support, and quality of life of breast cancer patients after surgery-a multicenter study

Purpose

Stigma is common in patients with breast cancer after surgery, which has a negative impact on the quality of life (QOL). This study aimed to investigate the QOL of breast cancer patients after surgery and to analyze the multiple chains mediating effects of self-disclosure and social support between stigma and QOL.

Methods

A total 292 patients of breast cancer patients after operation were recruited in this study. A questionnaire survey was conducted using the general information questionnaire, the consumer experiences of stigma questionnaire (CESQ), the distress disclosure index(DDI), the perceived social support scale(PSSS), and the functional assessment of cancer therapy-breast(FACT-B). Path analysis was conducted to test the hypothesized serial multiple mediation model.

Results

The total scores of stigma, self-disclosure, social support and QOL were 15 (10 ~ 22), 39 (31 ~ 46), 58 (50 ~ 67) and 88 (74 ~ 104) respectively. QOL of breast cancer patients after the operation was negatively correlated with stigma (p < 0.01), and positively correlated with self-disclosure and social support (p < 0.01). Self-disclosure and social support played a complete mediating effect between stigma and QOL, and the total mediating effect value was 85. 87%.

Conclusions

Self-disclosure and social support play a complete intermediary role between stigma and QOL. In order to improve the quality of life of patients, medical staff should pay attention to the assessment of stigma, encourage patients to express their emotions, and encourage their families and friends to respond to their expression and needs of patients.

Quality of life in Spanish postmenopausal breast cancer patients with localized disease who finish endocrine treatment: a prospective study

OBJECTIVE

In this article, the quality of life (QOL) of Spanish postmenopausal early-stage breast cancer patients who have finished endocrine therapy (ET), QOL changes after endocrine therapy cessation, and the differences between two endocrine therapy modalities (tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitor [AI]) are studied. More QOL information after endocrine therapy cessation is needed.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study was performed. Participating in the study were 158 postmenopausal patients who had received tamoxifen or AI for 5 years. In some cases, endocrine therapy may have changed during those 5 years.Patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR45 questionnaires at baseline, after 6 months, and after 1 year of follow-up. Patients older than 65 years also completed the QLQ-ELD14. Linear mixed-effect models were used to evaluate longitudinal changes in QOL and differences in QOL between endocrine therapy modalities.

RESULTS

QOL scores for the whole sample throughout follow-up were high (>80/100 points) in most QOL areas. Moderate limitations (>30 points) occurred in the QLQ-BR45 in sexual functioning and sexual enjoyment, future perspective, and joint symptoms. Moderate limitations also occurred in the QLQ-ELD14 in worries about others, maintaining purpose, joint stiffness, future worries, and family support. In those who had finished endocrine therapy, pain was reduced in all three assessments conducted during the 1-year follow-up period in both groups. Tamoxifen patients showed better QOL in functioning (role functioning, global QOL, financial impact), symptoms (pain), and emotional areas (future perspective and worries about others) than AI patients but worse QOL in skin mucosis symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study show that postmenopausal early-stage breast cancer patients adapted well to their disease and endocrine therapy treatment. QOL improvements in the 1-year follow-up period appeared in one key area: pain. Differences between endocrine therapy modalities suggested QOL was better in the tamoxifen group than in the AI group.

Psychosocial Wellbeing among Patients with Breast Cancer during COVID-19

The impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the wellbeing of breast cancer (BC) patients is not well understood. This study described psychosocial problems among these patients in the United States (US) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data were collected from BC patients via an online self-report survey between 30 March-6 July 2021 to assess the prevalence of COVID-19 diagnosis history and potential depression, health-related quality of life, COVID-related stress, and financial toxicity. Patients with early-stage (eBC) and metastatic (mBC) disease were compared. Of 669 patients included in the analysis, the prevalence of COVID-19 diagnosis history (10.9% versus 7.7%) and potential depression (33.7% versus 28.3%) were higher in mBC than eBC patients. Patients with eBC (versus mBC) had higher scores on nearly all Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast scales (all, p < 0.001). For the Psychological Impact of Cancer subscales measuring negative coping strategies, the emotional distress score was the highest (9.1 ± 1.8) in the overall sample. Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity scores were higher in eBC than in mBC patients (24.2 ± 11.3 vs. 21.3 ± 10.2, p < 0.001). Overall, the COVID-19-related stress score was highest for danger/contamination fears (8.2 ± 5.6). In conclusion, impairments to psychosocial wellbeing among patients during the pandemic were observed, particularly financial toxicity and poor mental health and emotional functioning, with greater problems among mBC patients.

Community pharmacists’ measurement of health-related quality of life for breast cancer with positive hormone receptors: A prospective observational study

Objectives:

Many patients with hormone-receptor positive breast cancer undergo prolonged treatment. However, the long-term patient quality of life assessment has not been examined. Using community pharmacists’ assistance is one method for assessing long-term quality of life. Thus, this study aimed to understand the ongoing health-related quality of life and quality-adjusted life year among breast cancer patients so that community pharmacists may contribute to their pharmacotherapy.

Methods:

We conducted a prospective observational study with 22 breast cancer patients who had health-related quality of life at the initial measurement and 6 months later.

Results:

Regarding the health-related quality of life, quality-adjusted life year concerning all patients was 0.890 (95% confidence interval: 0.846–0.935). Quality-adjusted life year concerning those younger than 65 years was 0.907 (95% confidence interval: 0.841–0.973), and that for individuals older than 65 years was 0.874 (95% confidence interval: 0.804–0.943). The adjuvant chemotherapy group had a lower health-related quality of life at the initial measurement (0.887; 95% confidence interval: 0.833–0.941) but showed a higher quality of life 6 months later (0.951; 95% confidence interval: 0894–1.010). Quality-adjusted life year for individuals regarding adjuvant chemotherapy was 0.919 (95% confidence interval: 0.874–0.964). In contrast, the life-prolonged group had a higher health-related quality of life at the initial measurement, which was lower 6 months later.

Conclusions:

As a result of measuring quality of life using the EuroQol 5-dimensions-5-levels, this study revealed a decline in health-related quality of life in patients undergoing hormonal therapy for breast cancer. The study is expected to assist community pharmacists in managing outpatients.

Construction of the structural equation model of stigma, self-disclosure, social support, and quality of life of breast cancer patients after surgery——A multicenter study.. [DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-2076682/v1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0]

Purpose: Stigma is common in patients with breast cancer after surgery, which has a negative impact on the quality of life(QOL). This study aimed to investigate the QOL of breast cancer patients after surgery and to analyze the multiple chains mediating effects of self-disclosure and social support between stigma and QOL. Methods: A total 292 patients of breast cancer patients after operation were recruited in this study. A questionnaire survey was conducted using the general information questionnaire, the consumer experiences of stigma questionnaire (CESQ), the distress disclosure index(DDI), the perceived social support scale(PSSS), and the functional assessment of cancer therapy-breast(FACT-B). Path analysis was conducted to test the hypothesized serial multiple mediation model. Results: The total scores of stigma, self-disclosure, social support and QOL were 15 (10 ~ 22), 39 (31 ~ 46), 58 (50 ~ 67) and 88 (74 ~ 104) respectively. QOL of breast cancer patients after the operation was negatively correlated with stigma (p < 0.01), and positively correlated with self-disclosure and social support (p < 0.01). Self-disclosure and social support played a complete mediating effect between stigma and QOL, and the total mediating effect value was 85. 87%. Conclusions: Self-disclosure and social support play a complete intermediary role between stigma and QOL. In order to improve the quality of life of patients, medical staff should pay attention to the assessment of stigma, encourage patients to express their emotions, and encourage their families and friends to respond to their expression and needs of patients.

Characterizing Early Changes in Quality of Life in Young Women With Breast Cancer

Introduction

Younger age at diagnosis is a risk factor for poor health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in long-term breast cancer survivors. However, few studies have specifically addressed HRQOL in young adults with breast cancer (i.e., diagnosed prior to age 40), nor have early changes in HRQOL been fully characterized.

Methods

Eligible female patients with breast cancer were identified through our local cancer center. To establish HRQOL, patients completed the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B) around diagnosis and 12 months later. Sociodemographic factors, genetic susceptibility to cancer, tumor- and treatment-related factors, and comorbidities (e.g., depression/anxiety) were abstracted from medical records and the local oncology registry. Mixed-effects models were used to identify changes in FACT-B scores during the first year of treatment and to determine whether any demographic/treatment-related factors modulated changes in scores.

Results

Health-related quality of life in young patients with breast cancer was within normal limits at baseline, with a FACT-B overall well-being score of 108.5 (95% confidence limits [CI] = 103.7, 113.3). Participants reported slight improvements over a 12-month period: FACT-B overall well-being scores increased 6.6 points (95% CI = 2.1, 11.1, p < 0.01), functional well-being improved 3.0 points (95% CI = 2.0, 4.1, p < 0.01), emotional well-being improved 1.9 points (95% CI = 0.9, 2.8, p < 0.01), and physical well-being improved 1.5 points (95% CI = 0.2, 2.8, p = 0.03), on average. Participants with anxiety/depression at baseline reported greater improvements in FACT-B overall well-being (change: 12.9, 95% CI = 6.4, 9.5) and functional well-being (change: 5.2, 95% CI = 3.5, 6.9) than participants who did not have anxiety/depression at baseline (change in FACT-B overall well-being: 4.9, 95% CI = 0.2, 9.7; change in functional well-being: 2.3, 95% CI = 1.1, 3.4). Marital status, reconstructive surgery, and baseline clinical staging were also significantly associated with changes in aspects of HRQOL, although their impact on change was relatively minimal.

Conclusion

Young women with breast cancer do not report HRQOL concerns during the first year of treatment. Improvements in HRQOL during the first year of treatment may be attributable to a sense of relief that the cancer is being treated, which, in the short run, may outweigh the negative late effects of treatment.

Changes in Health State Utility Values in Japanese Patients with End-Stage Breast Cancer

We aimed to determine the dynamic trends in health state utility values (HSUVs) in patients with end-stage breast cancer. We selected 181 patients comprising 137 with primary breast cancer (PBC) and 44 with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) (28 survivors and 16 patients with MBC death). HSUVs were 0.90 and 0.89 in patients with PBC and 0.83 and 0.80 in those with MBC (survivors) at 6 and 3 months, respectively, before the end of the observation period; these values were 0.73 and 0.66, respectively, in those with MBC (deceased) during the aforementioned period. The root-mean-squared error (RMSE) for the decrease in HSUVs over 3 months was 0.10, 0.096, and 0.175 for patients with PBC, MBC (survivors), and MBC (deceased), respectively. One-way analysis of variance for differences in absolute error among the groups was significant (p = 0.0102). Multiple comparisons indicated a difference of 0.068 in absolute error between patients with PBC and those with MBC (deceased) (p = 0.0082). Patients with end-stage breast cancer had well-controlled HSUVs 3 months before death, with a sharp decline in HSUVs in the 3 months leading up to death.